All right. So, like all good stories, this starts a long, long time ago when there was basically nothing. So here is a complete picture of the universe about 14-odd billion years ago. All energy is concentrated into a single point of energy. For some reason it explodes, and you begin to get these things. So you're now about 14 billion years into this. And these things expand and expand and expand into these giant galaxies, and you get trillions of them. And within these galaxies you get these enormous dust clouds. And I want you to pay particular attention to the three little prongs
U redu. Kao i svaka dobra priča, i ova počinje nekada davno kada praktički nije bilo ničega. Ovdje je cjelokupna slika svemira prije oko 14 milijardi godina. Sva energija je koncentrirana u jednoj jedinoj točki energije. Iz nekog razloga eksplodira, i počinjete dobivati ovo. Sada ste 14 milijardi godina u prošlosti. I to se širi i širi u ove ogromne galaksije, i dobijete ih na bilijune. A unutar ovih galaksija dobijete ove ogromne oblake prašine. Posebnu pažnju želim posvetiti ovim trima šiljcima
in the center of this picture. If you take a close-up of those, they look like this. And what you're looking at is columns of dust where there's so much dust -- by the way, the scale of this is a trillion vertical miles -- and what's happening is there's so much dust, it comes together and it fuses and ignites a thermonuclear reaction. And so what you're watching is the birth of stars. These are stars being born out of here. When enough stars come out, they create a galaxy. This one happens to be a particularly important galaxy, because you are here. (Laughter) And as you take a close-up of this galaxy, you find a relatively normal, not particularly interesting star.
u središtu ove slike. Ako ih uvećate, izgledaju ovako. Gledate stupce prašine gdje ima toliko prašine -- usput, mjerilo je bilijun vertikalnih milja, a ovdje ima toliko prašine, da se skuplja i sjedinjuje i dovodi do termonuklearne reakcije. Upravo gledate rođenje zvijezde. Ove se zvijezde rađaju odavde. Kada dovoljno zvijezda izađe, stvore galaksiju. Ovo je, naime, veoma važna galaksija, zato što ste vi ovdje. (Smijeh) I kako uvećavate snimku ove galaksije, pronađete jednu relativno normalnu, ne baš zanimljivu zvijezdu.
By the way, you're now about two-thirds of the way into this story. So this star doesn't even appear until about two-thirds of the way into this story. And then what happens is there's enough dust left over that it doesn't ignite into a star, it becomes a planet. And this is about a little over four billion years ago.
Usput, sad smo na dvije trećine ove priče. Dakle, ova zvijezda se ni ne pojavi do oko dvije trećine priče. A onda je dovoljno prašine preostalo pa se ne upali u zvijezdu, već postane planet. A to se dogodilo prije malo više od 4 milijarde godina.
And soon thereafter there's enough material left over that you get a primordial soup, and that creates life. And life starts to expand and expand and expand, until it goes kaput.
A uskoro nakon toga preostalo je dovoljno materijala da dobijete svemirsku juhu, iz koje nastaje život. I život se počne širiti i širiti, dok ne ode k vragu.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Now the really strange thing is life goes kaput, not once, not twice, but five times. So almost all life on Earth is wiped out about five times. And as you're thinking about that, what happens is you get more and more complexity, more and more stuff to build new things with. And we don't appear until about 99.96 percent of the time into this story, just to put ourselves and our ancestors in perspective.
Zbilja je neobično što život ne ode k vragu jednom, dvaput, već pet puta. Pa je skoro sav život na Zemlji izbrisan oko pet puta. I kako razmišljate o tome, dobivate sve više kompleksnosti, sve više stvari za izgradnju novih stvari. A mi se ne pojavljujemo do oko 99.96% priče, tek da bismo to usporedili sa sobom i našim precima.
So within that context, there's two theories of the case as to why we're all here. The first theory of the case is that's all she wrote. Under that theory, we are the be-all and end-all of all creation. And the reason for trillions of galaxies, sextillions of planets, is to create something that looks like that and something that looks like that. And that's the purpose of the universe; and then it flat-lines, it doesn't get any better.
Unutar tog konteksta postoje dvije teorije zašto smo svi ovdje. Prva teorija je da je to gotova priča. Prema toj teoriji, mi smo sve što postoji i kraj svega što postoji. A razlog za postojanje bilijuna galaksija, trilijuna planeta, jest stvoriti nešto što izgleda ovako i nešto što izgleda onako. I to je svrha svemira; kada umre, neće biti ništa bolje.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
The only question you might want to ask yourself is, could that be just mildly arrogant? And if it is -- and particularly given the fact that we came very close to extinction. There were only about 2,000 of our species left. A few more weeks without rain, we would have never seen any of these.
Jedino pitanje koje biste si možda željeli postaviti jest: Nije li to pomalo arogantno? A ako jest -- posebice zato što smo došli veoma blizu izumiranju. U prošlosti je bilo preostalo samo 2.000 jedinki naše vrste. Još nekoliko tjedana bez kiše i nikada ne bismo vidjeli ništa od ovoga.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
So maybe you have to think about a second theory if the first one isn't good enough. Second theory is: Could we upgrade? (Laughter) Well, why would one ask a question like that? Because there have been at least 29 upgrades so far of humanoids. So it turns out that we have upgraded. We've upgraded time and again and again. And it turns out that we keep discovering upgrades. We found this one last year. We found another one last month.
Pa možda trebate razmisliti o drugoj teoriji ako prva nije dovoljno dobra. Druga teorija je: Možemo li se nadograditi? (Smijeh) Pa zašto bi netko tako nešto pitao? Zato što je bilo barem 29 nadogradnji humanoida do sada. Ispada da smo se već nadograđivali. Nadograđivali smo se opet i opet iznova. I ispada da i dalje otkrivamo nadogradnje. Ovu smo našli prošle godine. Još jednu smo našli prošli mjesec.
And as you're thinking about this, you might also ask the question: So why a single human species? Wouldn't it be really odd if you went to Africa and Asia and Antarctica and found exactly the same bird -- particularly given that we co-existed at the same time with at least eight other versions of humanoid at the same time on this planet? So the normal state of affairs is not to have just a Homo sapiens; the normal state of affairs is to have various versions of humans walking around.
I dok razmišljate o tome, mogli biste se zapitati: Pa zašto samo jedna ljudska vrsta? Ne bi li bilo stvarno čudno da odete u Afriku, Aziju i na Antartiku i nađete u potpunosti istu pticu -- osobito ako uzmemo u obzir da smo postojali istovremeno s barem osam drugih verzija humanoida na ovom planetu? Normalno stanje nije imati samo Homo sapiensa; normalno stanje je da uokolo hodaju različite verzije ljudi.
And if that is the normal state of affairs, then you might ask yourself, all right, so if we want to create something else, how big does a mutation have to be? Well Svante Paabo has the answer. The difference between humans and Neanderthal is 0.004 percent of gene code. That's how big the difference is one species to another. This explains most contemporary political debates.
A ako je to normalno stanje, tada biste se mogli zapitati: Ako želimo stvoriti nešto drugo, koliko velika mutacija treba biti? Svante Paabo ima odgovor. Razlika između ljudi i Neandertalaca iznosi 0.004% genetskog koda. Tolika je razlika između te dvije vrste. To objašnjava najsuvremenije političke rasprave.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But as you're thinking about this, one of the interesting things is how small these mutations are and where they take place. Difference human/Neanderthal is sperm and testis, smell and skin. And those are the specific genes that differ from one to the other. So very small changes can have a big impact.
Ali dok razmišljate o tome, jedna od zanimljivosti jest koliko su te mutacije male i gdje se odvijaju. Razlika između čovjeka i Neandertalca je u spermi i testisima, njuhu i koži. A to su konkretni geni koji se razlikuju od jednog do drugog. Dakle, veoma male promjene mogu imati veliki učinak.
And as you're thinking about this, we're continuing to mutate. So about 10,000 years ago by the Black Sea, we had one mutation in one gene which led to blue eyes. And this is continuing and continuing and continuing.
A dok razmišljate o tome, nastavljamo mutirati. Prije oko 10.000 godina kraj Crnog mora dogodila se jedna mutacija u jednom genu koja je dovela do plavih očiju. I to se nastavlja i nastavlja.
And as it continues, one of the things that's going to happen this year is we're going to discover the first 10,000 human genomes, because it's gotten cheap enough to do the gene sequencing. And when we find these, we may find differences.
I kako se nastavlja, ove godine ćemo otkriti prvih 10.000 ljudskih genoma, zato što je sekvenciranje gena postalo dovoljno jeftino. A kada ih nađemo, mogli bismo naći razlike.
And by the way, this is not a debate that we're ready for, because we have really misused the science in this. In the 1920s, we thought there were major differences between people. That was partly based on Francis Galton's work. He was Darwin's cousin. But the U.S., the Carnegie Institute, Stanford, American Neurological Association took this really far. That got exported and was really misused. In fact, it led to some absolutely horrendous treatment of human beings. So since the 1940s, we've been saying there are no differences, we're all identical. We're going to know at year end if that is true.
Usput, to nije rasprava za koju smo spremni zato što smo uistinu zloupotrijebili znanost u tome. U 1920-ima, mislili smo da postoje važne razlike između ljudi. To je dijelom bilo zbog rada Francisa Galtona. Bio je Darwinov rođak. Ali SAD, Carnegie institut, Stanford, American Neurological Association su zbilja otišli daleko s tim. Ideja je izvezena i zbilja zloupotrebljena. U biti, dovela je do nekih zbilja groznih postupaka prema ljudskim bićima. Od 1940-ih govorimo da ne postoje razlike, da smo svi isti. Do kraja godine ćemo znati je li to istina.
And as we think about that, we're actually beginning to find things like, do you have an ACE gene? Why would that matter? Because nobody's ever climbed an 8,000-meter peak without oxygen that doesn't have an ACE gene. And if you want to get more specific, how about a 577R genotype? Well it turns out that every male Olympic power athelete ever tested carries at least one of these variants.
I dok razmišljamo o tome, počeli smo zbilja pronalaziti stvari. Na primjer, imate li ACE gen? Zašto bi to bilo važno? Zato što su svi koji su se ikad popeli na vrh visok 8.000 metara bez kisika imali ACE gen. Ako želite ići u detalje, što kažete na 577R genotip? Ispada da svaki muški olimpijski atletičar ikad testiran ima barem jednu od ovih varijanti.
If that is true, it leads to some very complicated questions for the London Olympics. Three options: Do you want the Olympics to be a showcase for really hardworking mutants? (Laughter) Option number two: Why don't we play it like golf or sailing? Because you have one and you don't have one, I'll give you a tenth of a second head start. Version number three: Because this is a naturally occurring gene and you've got it and you didn't pick the right parents, you get the right to upgrade. Three different options. If these differences are the difference between an Olympic medal and a non-Olympic medal.
Ako je to točno, dolazi do nekih vrlo složenih pitanja za londonske Olimpijske igre. Postoje tri mogućnosti. Želite li da Olimpijske igre budu izlog za veoma marljive mutante? (Smijeh) Druga mogućnost: Zašto se ne bismo natjecali kao u golfu ili jedrenju? Zato što ga ti imaš, a on nema, njemu ću dati desetinku sekunde prednosti. Verzija broj tri: Zato šo je to gen koji se prirodno javlja, ti ga imaš, a on nije odabrao prave roditelje, ima pravo na nadogradnju. Tri različite mogućnosti. Ako su te razlike one razlike koje odlučuju o osvajanju ili ne-osvajanju olimpijske medalje.
And it turns out that as we discover these things, we human beings really like to change how we look, how we act, what our bodies do. And we had about 10.2 million plastic surgeries in the United States, except that with the technologies that are coming online today, today's corrections, deletions, augmentations and enhancements are going to seem like child's play.
I čini se da kako otkrivamo te stvari, mi ljudska bića zbilja volimo mijenjati način na koji izgledamo, kako se ponašamo, što naša tijela rade. Bilo je oko 10,2 milijuna plastičnih operacija u SAD-u, samo što će se s tehnologijama koje će doći online ovih dana, današnje korekcije, brisanja, povećanja i poboljšanja činiti kao dječja igra.
You already saw the work by Tony Atala on TED, but this ability to start filling things like inkjet cartridges with cells are allowing us to print skin, organs and a whole series of other body parts. And as these technologies go forward, you keep seeing this, you keep seeing this, you keep seeing things -- 2000, human genome sequence -- and it seems like nothing's happening, until it does. And we may just be in some of these weeks.
Već ste vidjeli rad Tonyja Atale na TED-u, ali ta sposobnost da se počnu puniti stvari poput spremnika boje stanicama dopušta nam da tiskamo kožu, organe i cijeli niz drugih dijelova tijela. A kako te tehnologije napreduju, stalno viđate ovo, i ovo, viđate stvari -- 2000., sekvenca humanog genoma -- i čini se da se ništa ne događa, sve dok se ne dogodi. A možda smo baš u nekom od tih tjedana.
And as you're thinking about these two guys sequencing a human genome in 2000 and the Public Project sequencing the human genome in 2000, then you don't hear a lot, until you hear about an experiment last year in China, where they take skin cells from this mouse, put four chemicals on it, turn those skin cells into stem cells, let the stem cells grow and create a full copy of that mouse.
I dok razmišljate o njih dvoje kako sekvenciraju ljudski genom u 2000. i o Public Projectu koji također sekvencira ljudski genom u 2000., tada ne čujete mnogo, dok ne čujete o jednom pokusu u Kini prošle godine. U tom pokusu su uzeli stanice kože ovog miša, stavili četiri kemikalije na njih, pretvorili te stanice kože u matične stanice, dopustili matičnim stanicama da rastu i stvorili pravu kopiju tog miša.
That's a big deal. Because in essence what it means is you can take a cell, which is a pluripotent stem cell, which is like a skier at the top of a mountain, and those two skiers become two pluripotent stem cells, four, eight, 16, and then it gets so crowded after 16 divisions that those cells have to differentiate. So they go down one side of the mountain, they go down another. And as they pick that, these become bone, and then they pick another road and these become platelets, and these become macrophages, and these become T cells. But it's really hard, once you ski down, to get back up. Unless, of course, if you have a ski lift. And what those four chemicals do is they take any cell and take it way back up the mountain so it can become any body part.
To je velika stvar. Zato što to u osnovi znači da možete uzeti stanicu, koja je pluripotentna matična stanica. Ta stanica je poput skijaša na vrhu planine, a ova dva skijaša postanu dvije pluripotentne matične stanice, četiri, osam, 16, i tada nastaje takva gužva nakon 16 dijeljenja da se te stanice moraju diferencirati. Dakle, spuste se niz jednu stranu planine, spuste se niz drugu. I kako to odaberu, postaju kosti, a onda odaberu drugu stazu i postaju trombociti, ove postaju makrofagi, a ove postaju T limfociti. Ali zbilja je teško, jednom kad se spustite, popeti se natrag gore. Osim ako, naravno, imate žičaru. A te četiri kemikalije uzmu bilo koju stanicu i odnesu je natrag gore na planinu pa može postati bilo koji dio tijela.
And as you think of that, what it means is potentially you can rebuild a full copy of any organism out of any one of its cells. That turns out to be a big deal because now you can take, not just mouse cells, but you can human skin cells and turn them into human stem cells. And then what they did in October is they took skin cells, turned them into stem cells and began to turn them into liver cells. So in theory, you could grow any organ from any one of your cells.
Kada razmislite, to znači da potencijalno možete ponovno sagraditi pravu kopiju bilo kojeg organizma iz bilo koje od njegovih stanica. To je velika stvar zato što možete uzeti, ne samo mišje stanice, već ljudske stanice kože i pretvoriti ih u ljudske matične stanice. A onda su u listopadu uzeli stanice kože, pretvorili ih u matične stanice i počeli ih pretvarati u stanice jetre. Dakle, teoretski, mogli biste uzgojiti bilo koji organ iz bilo koje od vaših stanica.
Here's a second experiment: If you could photocopy your body, maybe you also want to take your mind. And one of the things you saw at TED about a year and a half ago was this guy. And he gave a wonderful technical talk. He's a professor at MIT. But in essence what he said is you can take retroviruses, which get inside brain cells of mice. You can tag them with proteins that light up when you light them. And you can map the exact pathways when a mouse sees, feels, touches, remembers, loves. And then you can take a fiber optic cable and light up some of the same things. And by the way, as you do this, you can image it in two colors, which means you can download this information as binary code directly into a computer.
Evo drugog pokusa: Kada biste mogli fotokopirati svoje tijelo, možda biste također željeli uzeti i svoj um. A jedna od stvari koje ste vidjeli na TED-u prije nekih godinu i pol bio je ovaj tip. A on je održao prekrasan govor o tehnici. Profesor je na MIT-u. Ali, u suštini, rekao je da možete uzeti retroviruse, koji dođu unutar mozgova miševa. Možete ih označiti proteinima koji svijetle kada ih upalite. I možete mapirati točne puteve kada miš vidi, osjeća, dodiruje, pamti, voli. A onda možete uzeti kabel s optičkim vlaknima i upaliti neke od njih. A to što radite, možete prikazati u dvije boje, što znači da možete downloadati tu informaciju kao binarni kod izravno na kompjuter.
So what's the bottom line on that? Well it's not completely inconceivable that someday you'll be able to download your own memories, maybe into a new body. And maybe you can upload other people's memories as well. And this might have just one or two small ethical, political, moral implications. (Laughter) Just a thought.
Koja je poanta toga? Pa, nije u potpunosti nezamislivo da ćete jednog dana moći downloadati vlastita sjećanja, možda u neko novo tijelo. A možda ćete moći i uploadati i sjećanja drugih ljudi. I to bi moglo imati samo jednu ili dvije male etičke, političke, moralne implikacije. (Smijeh) To je samo zamisao.
Here's the kind of questions that are becoming interesting questions for philosophers, for governing people, for economists, for scientists. Because these technologies are moving really quickly.
Evo vrste pitanja koja postaju zanimljivima za filozofe, ljude na vlasti, za ekonomiste, za znanstvenike. Jer, te tehnologije napreduju veoma brzo.
And as you think about it, let me close with an example of the brain. The first place where you would expect to see enormous evolutionary pressure today, both because of the inputs, which are becoming massive, and because of the plasticity of the organ, is the brain.
I dok razmišljate o tome, dopustite da dovršim jednim primjerom mozga. Prvo mjesto na kojem biste očekivali vidjeti ogromni evolucijski pritisak danas, i zbog inputa, koji postaju obilni, i zbog plastičnosti tog organa, jest mozak.
Do we have any evidence that that is happening? Well let's take a look at something like autism incidence per thousand. Here's what it looks like in 2000. Here's what it looks like in 2002, 2006, 2008. Here's the increase in less than a decade. And we still don't know why this is happening. What we do know is, potentially, the brain is reacting in a hyperactive, hyper-plastic way, and creating individuals that are like this. And this is only one of the conditions that's out there. You've also got people with who are extraordinarily smart, people who can remember everything they've seen in their lives, people who've got synesthesia, people who've got schizophrenia. You've got all kinds of stuff going on out there, and we still don't understand how and why this is happening.
Imamo li ikakve dokaze da se to događa? Pogledajmo na pojavu autizma na 1.000 ljudi. Evo kako je to izgledalo 2000. Ovako je izgledalo 2002., 2006., 2008. Eto povećanja u periodu manjem od jednog desetljeća. I još ne znamo zašto se to događa. Ono što znamo jest da, vjerojatno, mozak reagira na hiperaktivan, hiper-plastičan način, i stvara pojedince koji su ovakvi. A to je samo jedan od uvjeta koji postoje. Postoje i ljudi koji su natprirodno pametni, ljude koji se sjećaju svega što su u životu vidjeli, ljude koji imaju sinesteziju, one koji imaju shizofreniju. Mnogo se toga tu događa, a još uvijek ne razumijemo kako i zašto.
But one question you might want to ask is, are we seeing a rapid evolution of the brain and of how we process data? Because when you think of how much data's coming into our brains, we're trying to take in as much data in a day as people used to take in in a lifetime. And as you're thinking about this, there's four theories as to why this might be going on, plus a whole series of others. I don't have a good answer. There really needs to be more research on this.
No, jedno pitanje koje biste možda željeli postaviti jest: Vidimo li naglu evoluciju mozga i načina na koji obrađujemo podatke? Kada razmislite o tome koliko podataka dolazi u naš mozak, pokušavamo u jednom danu usvojiti toliko podataka koliko su ljudi usvajali tijekom cijelog života. I dok razmišljate o tome, postoje četiri teorije o tome zašto bi se to moglo događati, uz cijeli niz drugih. Ja nemam dobar odgovor. Zbilja bi trebalo biti više istraživanja o tome.
One option is the fast food fetish. There's beginning to be some evidence that obesity and diet have something to do with gene modifications, which may or may not have an impact on how the brain of an infant works.
Jedna mogućnost je fetiš brze prehrane. Počeli su se javljati dokazi da su pretilost i prehrana nekako povezani s modifikacijom gena, što može, ali ne mora imati utjecaja na način na koji mozak novorođenčeta radi.
A second option is the sexy geek option. These conditions are highly rare. (Laughter) (Applause) But what's beginning to happen is because these geeks are all getting together, because they are highly qualified for computer programming and it is highly remunerated, as well as other very detail-oriented tasks, that they are concentrating geographically and finding like-minded mates. So this is the assortative mating hypothesis of these genes reinforcing one another in these structures.
Druga mogućnost jest ona sexy štrebera. Ti uvjeti su zbilja rijetki. (Smijeh) (Pljesak) Počelo se događati da, zato što se ti štreberi okupljaju, zato što su visoko kvalificirani za programiranje kompjutera što je veoma isplativo, kao i drugi poslovi orijentirani na detalje, da su geografski koncentrirani i pronalaze partnere sličnih svjetonazora. To je hipoteza selektivnog križanja tih gena koji pojačavaju jedan drugog u tim strukturama.
The third, is this too much information? We're trying to process so much stuff that some people get synesthetic and just have huge pipes that remember everything. Other people get hyper-sensitive to the amount of information. Other people react with various psychological conditions or reactions to this information. Or maybe it's chemicals.
Treće, je li to previše informacija? Pokušavamo obraditi toliko toga da neki ljudi razviju sinesteziju i imaju ogromne cijevi koje pamte sve. Drugi ljudi postaju hiper-osjetljivi na količinu informacija. Drugi reagiraju različitim psihološkim stanjima ili reakcijama na te informacije. Ili su možda kemikalije u pitanju.
But when you see an increase of that order of magnitude in a condition, either you're not measuring it right or there's something going on very quickly, and it may be evolution in real time.
Ali kada vidite porast tih razmjera kod nekog stanja, ili ga ne mjerite kako treba ili se nešto događa veoma brzo, a mogla bi to biti evolucija u stvarnom vremenu.
Here's the bottom line. What I think we are doing is we're transitioning as a species. And I didn't think this when Steve Gullans and I started writing together. I think we're transitioning into Homo evolutis that, for better or worse, is not just a hominid that's conscious of his or her environment, it's a hominid that's beginning to directly and deliberately control the evolution of its own species, of bacteria, of plants, of animals. And I think that's such an order of magnitude change that your grandkids or your great-grandkids may be a species very different from you.
Evo poante. Mislim da mi kao vrsta prelazimo u neko novo stanje. A nisam to mislio kad smo Steve Gullans i ja počeli zajedno pisati. Mislim da prelazimo u Homo evolutisa koji, bilo to dobro ili loše, nije samo hominid svjestan svoje okoline, već hominid koji će početi izravno i namjerno kontrolirati evoluciju vlastite vrste, bakterija, biljaka, životinja. Mislim da je to promjena tolikih razmjera da bi vaši unuci ili praunuci mogli biti vrsta veoma drugačija od vaše.
Thank you very much.
Puno vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)